[cabfpub] Draft Ballot 185 - Limiting the Lifetime of Certificates: User input

Ryan Sleevi sleevi at google.com
Fri Feb 10 18:04:54 UTC 2017

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Scott Rea <scott at scottrea.com> wrote:

> Well I am not a voting member (yet), so feel free to ride rough shod
> over what I am saying, not because you are correct, but because you can...
> You missed entirely what I was saying Ryan. Peter's calculation is
> technical - I agree, this is why you correctly chose days as the period
> to be included in the standard. But my point is that Andrew's original
> argument for 13 months is arbitrary - I could make the same argument for
> 14 months, its just a line in the sand...
> To be clear - I agree that 398 days is a technical representation of an
> upper bound on 13 months. I disagree that 13 months is objective, and as
> such, 400 days accomplishes the same objective, with lower expected
> implementation effort for some of the CAs in the Forum.
> I still advocate for 400 days.

OK, so it's really a debate between our preferences - an expressed
preference for 365 days on this side, and your desire for longer - and the
question as to whether 398 or 400 is an acceptable compromise between those
preferences. 398 has the benefit that it's the smallest possible value that
accommodates the needs expressed, while also minimizing screwing up.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20170210/398a5544/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the Public mailing list